Brian Cathcart, Professor of Journalism, Kingston University London— Written Evidence (FOJ0060)

Brian Cathcart, Professor of Journalism, Kingston University London— written evidence (FOJ0060) House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee Inquiry: The future of journalism Introduction 1. I have been Professor of Journalism at Kingston University since 2006, before which I worked as a journalist as a freelance, at Reuters, at the New Statesman and at the Independent papers, where I was on the launch staff and where I became Deputy Editor of the Independent on Sunday. I was one of the founders of Hacked Off and served as its director from 2012 to 2104, and before that I was a specialist adviser to the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I write on journalism matters both for academic publications and as a commentator, now principally for Byline Times. 2. I focus here mainly on the two questions relating to trust, ‘Why has trust in journalists declined?’ and ‘How could it be improved?’, although some of my comments bear on other questions. My comments relate chiefly to the national press. In the UK public sphere the national press, by which I mean the journalism generated by the legacy national newspaper producers, is the dominant and most conspicuous form of journalism. It overshadows the regional and local press and in practice it usually sets the news agenda for broadcast journalism. It is also the focus of the problems of trust. Summary 3. At the heart of the trust issue is the failure of standards in the national press, which itself is a consequence of very weak accountability. This urgently requires political attention because public service journalism now requires long-term subsidy. Politicians, however, should never have the power to allocate such subsidies; that should reside in a wholly-independent Institute of Public Interest News, as recommended in the Cairncross Report. At the same time, to protect the public from abuses and to ensure a level of accountability capable of raising standards and improving trust, any news organisations receiving public subsidy should be required to participate in regulation meeting the standards set out in the Royal Charter on Press Self-Regulation of 2013. A transformed relationship 4. The Covid-19 crisis, by suddenly accelerating existing trends in news consumption and delivery, has brought forward the point where journalism requires public subsidy and has thus transformed the relationship between legislators and journalism. 5. Print, and the advertising it attracts, have long been the economic mainstay of much of our journalism, but even before the crisis the Sun and Mirror were already doomed soon to cease printing. On my calculation their daily print sales were declining so fast they were due to reach zero by 2025/6 (and of course the decision to end production would have come some time before then). Print sales have now collapsed and the printed newspaper, at least on the national scene, is highly unlikely to make a sustained recovery. 1 6. Below is a table I compiled in 2018, based on Audit Bureau of Circulations data. My article on the end of print can be read here: https://inforrm.org/2017/08/04/ newspapers-how-near-is-the-end-brian-cathcart/ 7. The Covid-19 crisis has thrown a bright light on the shift among the public to reliance for news on broadcast and on online supplies frequently accessed through social media. Several of the legacy national news brands have been successful in exploiting the possibilities of social media for reach, to the point where as a platform for delivery it might be described as the new print. 8. Meanwhile some newer news brands have experienced a breakthrough. For example Byline Times, to which I contribute, has seen a jump in readership and subscriptions. In the words of Executive Editor Stephen Colgrave, on April 21: ‘This month 1.5 million people have read articles on Byline Times Daily News Site – three times our usual amount. Also, new subscriptions in April are already higher than our best month at over 40 a day. This is enough to pay for our daily news site and keep it free to view as well as provide subscribers with a monthly newspaper. As it grows we can afford more investigations and journalists.’ 9. But it is clear that, for many news organisations, the historic revenue from print sales and accompanying advertising revenue will not be adequately replaced from online sources. The effect has been to increase the volume of appeals for additional public subsidy – a case already being vigorously made before the crisis, as shown, for example, in the Cairncross Review process. 10. Whatever the short-term government responses may be, the economic fundamentals of the industry strongly suggest that subsidised journalism is here to stay, and it is this which, in an historic fashion, transforms the relationship between legislators and journalism. 11. Legislators now have the responsibility to protect and nurture public interest journalism while scrupulously avoiding, and being seen to avoid, the abuse of power that may be entailed in distributing money to those whose job is to inform the public and scrutinise the powerful. This is both an opportunity to do good and a very dangerous gateway to corruption. 2 Closing the corruption gate 12. Political action is essential in assuring the future of public interest journalism. It cannot be avoided. But it is possible and also necessary to take the necessary steps while minimising both the risk of corruption and the possible perception of corruption. 13. Ideally Parliament should act in this matter on the basis of cross-party consensus. As a minimum, however, whatever action it takes should be limited and should take place in the greatest possible transparency. The objective, as it was when the Royal Charter was approved, should be to achieve an effective one-off political intervention providing lasting remedies and commanding a maximum of public trust. 14. Further, no government, minister, government body, parliamentary body or working politician of any kind should ever have the power to decide on or influence the distribution of public money intended to support public interest journalism. That task should be outsourced to a body that is entirely independent of political influence and that is also subject to a transparent and independent appointment process similar to that which applies at the Press Recognition Panel. 15. A body with the appropriate remit – an Institute for Public Interest News – was proposed in the report of the Cairncross Review. That recommendation was rejected by the government in January. It should be revived and implemented. Decline in trust? 16. The call for evidence speaks of a decline in trust in journalism. I suggest that the problem is that trust is at an unacceptably low level and has been so for as long as we have evidence on the subject. Here I rely on research I published in 2017 comparing the datasets of all the professional surveys on the subject of trust in national newspaper journalism that I could find, notably those conducted by Eurobarometer, YouGov and Ipsos-Mori. (https://www.radstats.org.uk/no118/Cathcart118.pdf) 17. My conclusions were as follows. These datasets provided no grounds to speak of a decline in trust in newspaper journalism because the data from before 2011 were disparate and conflicting. On the other hand, they provided what I considered strong grounds for asserting that trust in national newspaper journalism was continuously low in the years 2011-16. I have not repeated the exercise in full since then, but I have seen nothing to suggest there has been substantive change since 2016. 18. What do I mean by a low level of trust? Notoriously, year after year, the Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 34 European countries have found the UK to be last or nearly last in the table ‘Trust in written press’. Equally consistently YouGov’s and Ipsos-Mori’s findings show journalists, and in particular national newspaper journalists, among the lowest-scoring social groups when it comes to trust. And on the (admittedly slender) evidence, national newspaper journalists score some way below broadcast journalists and regional and local journalists, with red-top national journalists preforming especially badly. 19. By any reasonable measure, therefore – when set against journalists in other countries, against other journalists and against people in other walks of life – national newspaper journalists score badly. Thus I believe we may say that trust is low. 3 Why is trust low? The problem of accountability 20. In any walk of life where accountability is weak, bad practice is likely to thrive. There are abundant examples of this rule at work, from the corruption of monastic orders of the Middle Ages to MPs’ expenses a decade ago; the national newspaper press is no exception. Accountability for journalists may take many forms and so far as national newspapers are concerned every one of those forms is either weak or absent. The consequence is unrestrained bad practice of which the public is sufficiently aware that it depresses trust. Let us review briefly the forms of accountability. The law 21. Journalists often complain that Britain has restrictive and even Draconian libel, privacy and data protection laws, among others, but access to justice for the public is so problematic that in practice only the wealthy can count on upholding their rights in court. Conditional Fee Agreements, or no-win, no-fee agreements, are available in principle, but in practice few members of the public have any idea of this, few solicitors offer them or are even aware of who might offer them, the solicitors who do offer them will accept only the strongest cases, and their viability has been steadily squeezed by government and Supreme Court decisions.

Load more